OK, so I'm not the brightest bulb in the circuit, and maybe a lot of you have already said this, but it has occurred to me that the owners can afford a season without hockey and that they will recover their losses by any concessions that they can gain from the players.

From comments the owners have made, JJ's classic foot in mouth moments I thought they were simply idiots. I was thinking of them in terms of the CEO's that I've seen. As CEOs they would lose their jobs for saying such idiotic stuff as they have. But again, the obvious, they are not CEOs (although some like to call themselves that), they are owners (duh, on my part).

Damn, but this is so obvious. We will see a strike every 7 years. What the owners lose from 1 season they will regain in the next 7. The players will have to blink first until they can all sign in Europe for similar money. And even if that happens, if every player making more than 2 million signs in Europe, know what? They will still be able to fill their rinks.

Despite what fans are saying, they will come back to the NHL. Can you honestly picture yourself staying up late to see Moscow Spartak games even if the whole Bruins roster signed there? And virtually no one will take the flight or move to Moscow to buy tickets.

The NHL is a monopoly. Their product is like crack cocaine to all of us. Even if the crack is diluted the addicts will come back. And the dealers aren't users - the few interviews JJ has had have proven he knows as much as a casual fan, maybe less. (Examples: not being able to recall Jagr's name back in 2000, the Neely comment in the Cup speach, and many, many more)

OK, so I'm not the brightest bulb in the circuit, and maybe a lot of you have already said this, but it has occurred to me that the owners can afford a season without hockey and that they will recover their losses by any concessions that they can gain from the players.

From comments the owners have made, JJ's classic foot in mouth moments I thought they were simply idiots. I was thinking of them in terms of the CEO's that I've seen. As CEOs they would lose their jobs for saying such idiotic stuff as they have. But again, the obvious, they are not CEOs (although some like to call themselves that), they are owners (duh, on my part).

Damn, but this is so obvious. We will see a strike every 7 years. What the owners lose from 1 season they will regain in the next 7. The players will have to blink first until they can all sign in Europe for similar money. And even if that happens, if every player making more than 2 million signs in Europe, know what? They will still be able to fill their rinks.

Despite what fans are saying, they will come back to the NHL. Can you honestly picture yourself staying up late to see Moscow Spartak games even if the whole Bruins roster signed there? And virtually no one will take the flight or move to Moscow to buy tickets.

The NHL is a monopoly. Their product is like crack cocaine to all of us. Even if the crack is diluted the addicts will come back. And the dealers aren't users- the few interviews JJ has had have proven he knows as much as a casual fan, maybe less. (Examples: not being able to recall Jagr's name back in 2000, the Neely comment in the Cup speach, and many, many more)

1. yup. with a new 7 year deal, if the league gets a 15% concession, they've pretty much got their money back even with a totally lost season. Those concessions just keep going on to infinity too. Using the last cba as an example, the 24% gained by the owners moves forward to this next cba too, plus whatever else they negotiate this time.

The gift that keeps on giving. I

If most players stuck around for 20 years, their pain would be minimal too, but they're giving away about 20% of their lifetime earnings on average. From a mathmatical perspective, it's easy to see who has the hammer.

2. see #1.

3. highly addictive all right, but only to a very small minority. most people aren't as committed as you and me.(thank goodness)

Obviously the owners have an incredible amount of power, and it all can't go unchecked, or we'll be right back to the Gordie Howe days. There needs to be some element of fairness, and balance. Your comment regarding a "monopoly" reminds me of the mid 70's. Although, it didn't prosper, the WHA frigged up that monopoly, ruined the owners ability to pillage, and that element of competitiveness re-set the scales.

Same thing will happen again, in some form. If things get too far off the tracks..if it becomes too easy to make money in the hockey business, a rival group will come in and try and cash in.

Another tid bit regarding the WHA, the "addicts" loved it...the addicts bought tickets, however unfortunate, a successful business needs that other 70% to get by. That may be the only thing that gets things moving for this latest schamozzle

The owners are attempting to thwart market forces at every turn. The only part of their business they don't want regulated, is what they charge you and me. Ironically, at some point, free enterprise will step in, and start the process all over again.

So, basically, your argument is people will pay $150.00 to watch a team full of Zach Hamills. I couldn't disagree more. And, players playing in the KHL are already making up the difference in any salary losses from this lockout.

Ovechkin said some may not return. The longer this lockout goes on the more I fear that may be true. And, what if some of those players are star players? If that happens, that's something no fan will nonchalantly forget. At least Boston fans, anyways.

Cripe, we still haven't forgotten about JJ not paying players for Cam's late 80's teams.

So, basically, your argument is people will pay $150.00 to watch a team full of Zach Hamills. I couldn't disagree more. And, players playing in the KHL are already making up the difference in any salary losses from this lockout.

Ovechkin said some may not return. The longer this lockout goes on the more I fear that may be true. And, what if some of those players are star players? If that happens, that's something no fan will nonchalantly forget. At least Boston fans, anyways.

Cripe, we still haven't forgotten about JJ not paying players for Cam's late 80's teams.

If people aren't willing to cough up $150 for a team of Zach Hamills, please explain the Toronto Maple Leafs.

So, basically, your argument is people will pay $150.00 to watch a team full of Zach Hamills. I couldn't disagree more. And, players playing in the KHL are already making up the difference in any salary losses from this lockout.

Ovechkin said some may not return. The longer this lockout goes on the more I fear that may be true. And, what if some of those players are star players? If that happens, that's something no fan will nonchalantly forget. At least Boston fans, anyways.

Have you actually seen or read what top end N.H.L players are making over in Europe,if so please provide a link.I could be wrong but i don't think their making anywhere near what they would make in North America, maybe the top end guys come close but after that,i don't know.I have read lots of arcticles where a player has signed with a European team but it never mentions the money.

Ovechkin said some may not return. The longer this lockout goes on the more I fear that may be true. And, what if some of those players are star players? If that happens, that's something no fan will nonchalantly forget. At least Boston fans, anyways.

When, and if, the lockout ends,Ovechkin and anybody else with a NHL contract, will be obligated to return to North America because the NHL and KHL honour each league's contracts.The players should be happy to sign what the NHL is offering. They will always get paid more in the NHL than anywhere else. The owners understand that if they ever really tried to low-ball the players, it would invite another WHA scenario.

If there are no rumours of a rival league starting up, you know the NHL owners are offering a reasonable deal, IMO.

Ovechkin said some may not return. The longer this lockout goes on the more I fear that may be true. And, what if some of those players are star players? If that happens, that's something no fan will nonchalantly forget. At least Boston fans, anyways.

When, and if, the lockout ends,Ovechkin and anybody else with a NHL contract, will be obligated to return to North America because the NHL and KHL honour each league's contracts.The players should be happy to sign what the NHL is offering. They will always get paid more in the NHL than anywhere else. The owners understand that if they ever really tried to low-ball the players, it would invite another WHA scenario.

If there are no rumours of a rival league starting up, you know the NHL owners are offering a reasonable deal, IMO.

If you owned a business with no direct competition and your workers other options for work weren't all that hot, why would you make a 'reasonable offer' ?

If it were me, or anyone with any business sense, you will play them as little as you can possibly get away with. This is math pure and simple. For me 4 is better than 2, your mileage may vary.

Ovechkin said some may not return. The longer this lockout goes on the more I fear that may be true. And, what if some of those players are star players? If that happens, that's something no fan will nonchalantly forget. At least Boston fans, anyways.

When, and if, the lockout ends,Ovechkin and anybody else with a NHL contract, will be obligated to return to North America because the NHL and KHL honour each league's contracts.The players should be happy to sign what the NHL is offering. They will always get paid more in the NHL than anywhere else. The owners understand that if they ever really tried to low-ball the players, it would invite another WHA scenario.

If there are no rumours of a rival league starting up, you know the NHL owners are offering a reasonable deal, IMO.

If you owned a business with no direct competition and your workers other options for work weren't all that hot, why would you make a 'reasonable offer' ?

If it were me, or anyone with any business sense, you will play them as little as you can possibly get away with. This is math pure and simple. For me 4 is better than 2, your mileage may vary.

As I said, the owners have to make a fair offer, because to do otherwise, would leave them open to the formation of a rival league.

The only reason the NHL has no competition, is because of the amount of money the owners are willing to pay the players.

The owners understand that any CBA must compensate the players fairly, and a 50-50 split does that.

If the players signed the current offer, they would be still making millions of dollars with guaranteed contracts, that pays them, regardless of performance.

A rival league just ain't going to happen. Almost everyone with anywhere near that kind of loot already has it in the NHL. So who's around to pony up that kind of cash? Balsillie and who knows who else. Maybe 6 guys could get together, but where are they going to play? They sure aren't going to get most of the rinks in the league and I think every major market is locked down. There wouldn't be anywhere near the number of teams as the WHA put up. And how would they avoid the same problems the WHA had? Just not going to happen.

What you say about the players accepting the offer is true, not a hardship to accept that kind of money.

But that's not my point. I'm saying that a long lockout was the intention of the owners right along, unless of course the nhlpa accepted that first RIDICULOUS offer. And you must admit that the first offer was outrageious.

...the world will go on with or without the NHL. don't get me wrong, i love to watch the best hockey players on the planet compete against one another. BUT, i'm not going to pretend i give a hoot about who gets what share of billions(a sentiment obviously not shared in this forum). the only language millionaires and billionaires speak is $$$$$$$. so tune this garbage out, and don't spend one nickel of your $(or time) on the nhl for a calendar year. if it's just me, it doesn't work. if it's tens of thousands of fans, it might perk some ears up. this is called "tough love". show your love of hockey by walking away from it. ever buy a car? when you walk away from the salesman's offer, he realizes he must find common ground and compromise. we as comsumers should look at things differently. we're doing the car salesman a favor by choosing his product- HE should be thankful and accomodating to YOU. not the other way around. i get tons of college hockey where i live, and that's all the hockey i'll be concerned with for the foreseeable future. the nhl treats it's fans like that love-drunk boy/girl friend that you can continually cheat on, because you know they'll take you back everytime. don't be that chump.

A rival league just ain't going to happen. Almost everyone with anywhere near that kind of loot already has it in the NHL. So who's around to pony up that kind of cash? Balsillie and who knows who else. Maybe 6 guys could get together, but where are they going to play? They sure aren't going to get most of the rinks in the league and I think every major market is locked down. There wouldn't be anywhere near the number of teams as the WHA put up. And how would they avoid the same problems the WHA had? Just not going to happen.

What you say about the players accepting the offer is true, not a hardship to accept that kind of money.

But that's not my point. I'm saying that a long lockout was the intention of the owners right along, unless of course the nhlpa accepted that first RIDICULOUS offer. And you must admit that the first offer was outrageious.

We will see this at the end of every cba agreement.

I agree, that if the NHL had made the 50/50 offer in the beginning, it would have reduced the level of antagonism in these negotiations, as well as the solidarity of the players.

As athletes, the players thought process is, if you push me, I'm gonna push back, harder. The owners should have understood, that their draconian first offer was all Fehr needed, to elicit the full support of the players.

Having said that, I also understand the rational of the owners. It's their league. They should be able to set the rules that determine the level of compensation they are willing to pay to the players.

My guess is, that if the players finally agreed to ratify the current NHL offer, with the understanding, that any player under contract, could cancel their deal, and be free to sign with any other league in the world, everyone, including the Russians, would stay in the NHL.

As far as the rival league scenario, I think there are a lot of rich people out there. They could form a new WHA. Except, this time, it could really be the World Hockey Association, with teams from Russia, Europe, and North America.

It won't happen, of course. The players follow the money, and the NHL, with a 50/50 split, would still be the players best option. It may just take them a year or so, to figure that out.

A rival league just ain't going to happen. Almost everyone with anywhere near that kind of loot already has it in the NHL. So who's around to pony up that kind of cash? Balsillie and who knows who else. Maybe 6 guys could get together, but where are they going to play? They sure aren't going to get most of the rinks in the league and I think every major market is locked down. There wouldn't be anywhere near the number of teams as the WHA put up. And how would they avoid the same problems the WHA had? Just not going to happen.

What you say about the players accepting the offer is true, not a hardship to accept that kind of money.

But that's not my point. I'm saying that a long lockout was the intention of the owners right along, unless of course the nhlpa accepted that first RIDICULOUS offer. And you must admit that the first offer was outrageious.

We will see this at the end of every cba agreement.

Lots of cash out there to start a rival league. There are a few russian billionaires that could easily fund a league on their own. Highly unlikely but possible.

OK, even if a new league starts with Russian billionares, it's going to take me a LONG time to warm up to the Boston Spartaks playing at the Agganis arena. And if the new team had Phaneuf, Kessel, Cooke (& many others) on it, I would hate that team forever. And can you imagine if most of the current Bruins team ended up in Montreal? And would you still hate Montreal? All of the excitement of a blow up doll girlfriend, it might suffice in the most extreme condition imaginable and even then you might not be able to finish the deed and leave after the end of the second period.

For that I'm with you. I'm certainly not going to go to as many (actually, if any) games in the future. The garden is such a hassle, parking sucks, decent food is hard to get and you have to wait forever and getting in and out takes forever. To get in at a liesurely pace, have dinner, see warmups I have to leave at 4 for a 7 pm start. And I don't get home until 12:30 or 1 in the a.m. (about 30-40 mintue drive each way).

Meanwhile, driving down to Providence is an hour plus and I spend the same amount of time, but don't sit in traffic, get better food more easily and faster and parking is a breeze.

If the season is canceled and players burn a year of their contract, NBC must still pay $200M as per the agreement with the NHL (not the NHLPA). So that money goes straight to the owner's pockets now and an extra year is added to the end of the contract term for free. Now that money I assume will come out of HRR used to create the Cap in that extra year. So players lose a contract year now and the league will have a much lower cap in that additional year right?